Probably much safer than a motorcycle though. I always found it interesting how we have such strict crash safety testing for cars, but still allow motorcycles despite them being incredibly dangerous. Maybe just because it is visually obvious that a motorcycle is dangerous? Or more likely because everyone would get mad if you tried to ban them.
* Motorcycles aren't very dangerous to bystanders.
* Approximately zero infants or toddlers are routinely transported via motorcycle.
* Motorcycles don't make up a large percentage of traffic in the U.S.
* Motorcycle deaths are more likely to leave donable organs intact, so it's a bit like the lottery, but for organs. Some people opt in to entertainment, and the rest of society benefits.
EuroNCAP ratings are harsher, so not really. It's mostly that the US system is based on SUVs and other behemoths. Look at the new small Toyota Yaris. That's what is required to get a good rating these days. Most newish SUVs doesn't even have the same amount of safety systems (like airbags between driver and front passenger seat).
I was speaking solely about regulatory requirements (i.e FMVSS) for selling a vehicle, not the NCAP programs. It is generally legal to sell vehicles with bad NCAP scores. For instance: the 2018 Fiat Panda met EU regulations to be sold but scored 0 stars on EuroNCAP.
I think it's not that the US is odd as much as each market is odd in a different way.
I remember one of the points of the failed trans-atlantic trade treaty was about handling where the stop lights should be on cars, because "safety" regulations differ.
Yes, the EU has high standards and differs from the US mainly on minor details.
Standards (or lack thereof) in much of Asia/Africa/S.America are on a whole different planet.
I guess my point is, not being approved for sale in the US doesn’t mean the car is shockingly different than many other cars in the rest of the world. You can find unsafe cars that would be illegal to sell in the US that say “Nissan” or “VW” on them just over the border in Mexico.
Every manufacturer builds cars to meet the specific requirements and needs for a market. In many countries, the requirements are low and the #1 priority is cheap.
I wonder what’s worse: being squashed inside this car or just become airborne when scooter hits something. At least you’re required to wear a helmet when on a scooter. But as someone said here, if we only had those cars on the road(and a 30 km/h speed limit), it’d be much safer.
Seatbelts saved a bunch of lives by preventing occupants from getting flung out the car, so I’d imagine that being in the car is safer.
Current road death trends in the US indicate that people inside cars are dying less, but people outside of them are dying more, notably cyclists and pedestrians.
If they would be used for city speeds only, the risks aren't much bigger compared to scooters, in contrary.
But I have 0 doubt that being priced so aggressively, US and Europe would slap such a huge tariff to protect local markets, they would be very uncompetitive.
If all cars were like that it would be fine.